and the impact of planes into Pentagon without leaving plane material or impact point... Same for the plane that crashed (Lets roll...). It is funny to see again the name of Pakistani ISI individual... Talking about bad PR...

I have no clue of the value so pleace decide it without my help.

Peace.

p.s. whyme... Stay away with your simple reply. I do not say that it is correct.

p.s.2. Just wondering why this page is closed in military strategic forum...

The site contains many articles and some of the are actually quite informative.

However, the main site contains a 9/11 timeline link at the top, clicking this would take you to another wery interesting page. I would like people to read just one article from here and tell me what you think honestly.

The articles called Muslims Suspend The Laws Of Physics; Part 1, I would reproduce it here but it is too long and most people would just skip over it.

The article can be found under the first link in the navbar, Events of 9/11 and under the sub heading of The World Trade Center Demolition; An Analysis.

Could it be possible that you americans here just read the site name and decided it was fiction before you even read anything? Fine I agree many of the things on the site may be fiction but that was not what I asked.

My post was not regarding the site but an article on that site which none of you wish to read, why is that?

Read the article I asked you to read, it's called Muslims Suspend The Laws of Physics; Part 1.

Could it be possible that you americans here just read the site name and decided it was fiction before you even read anything? Fine I agree many of the things on the site may be fiction but that was not what I asked.

My post was not regarding the site but an article on that site which none of you wish to read, why is that?

Read the article I asked you to read, it's called Muslims Suspend The Laws of Physics; Part 1.

Ok I looked at it. But really, are my opinions about some guy making wild ass guesses about topics on which he knows nothing really going to change your mind that the US was behind it all? You want to believe that the US is the sinister force in the world, not a group of Muslims who took a flying leap into the looney bin. Unless you are really willing to look at things before making a conclusion, I don't see you changing your mind.

If you actually want to read about the physics of what happened instead of browsing the pondering of someone who is basing his conclusions off things he doesn't even know (quote from the article - "Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?" -Gee dimwad, you're putting forth the hypothsis, do some leg work), here's a transcript of a PBS program that covered these topics.

I am not saying everything written on that site is correct, its based on deductive reasoning and opinion, but I have always believed and continue to believe that we dont know everything about who did 9-11. Just a small example, about half of the hijackers ie. the exact matching names - are actually alive in the middle east, this isnt opinion, but reported fact. Few of them are commercial pilots, is that just coincidence? We came to know a lot about the families of Atta and another Lebanese guy (dont remember his name), but very little or nothing came under media light, about the families and backgrounds of the 15 or 17 Saudis.

Ok I looked at it. But really, are my opinions about some guy making wild ass guesses about topics on which he knows nothing really going to change your mind that the US was behind it all? You want to believe that the US is the sinister force in the world, not a group of Muslims who took a flying leap into the looney bin. Unless you are really willing to look at things before making a conclusion, I don't see you changing your mind.

Honestly no I don't think you did look at it. Where in the article was the author disputing who did what to the towers? Where in any of my posts have I mentioned the hijackers or who they were or weren't?

My posts were regarding the towers and their fall. Nothing related to who the terrorists were or weren't. My posts were not hard to comprehend even for people with limited intelligence. Hopefully now SNS and Claw you have understood what I was referring you two and anyone else to read.

As regarding the knowledge of the author, I confess that I do not know if he is qualified to write such a report but his email address is there for you to question him directly.

If he is not qualfied then please by all means send us a rebuttal of his article with some evidence, if you can.

I am not saying everything written on that site is correct, its based on deductive reasoning and opinion, but I have always believed and continue to believe that we dont know everything about who did 9-11. Just a small example, about half of the hijackers ie. the exact matching names - are actually alive in the middle east, this isnt opinion, but reported fact. Few of them are commercial pilots, is that just coincidence? We came to know a lot about the families of Atta and another Lebanese guy (dont remember his name), but very little or nothing came under media light, about the families and backgrounds of the 15 or 17 Saudis.

Some of the hijackers used stolen passports. This doesn't really change who the key players were. 9-11 has become the new conspiracy theory playground for all those who are bored with the Kennedy assassinations.

Honestly no I don't think you did look at it. Where in the article was the author disputing who did what to the towers? Where in any of my posts have I mentioned the hijackers or who they were or weren't?

My posts were regarding the towers and their fall. Nothing related to who the terrorists were or weren't. My posts were not hard to comprehend even for people with limited intelligence. Hopefully now SNS and Claw you have understood what I was referring you two and anyone else to read.

As regarding the knowledge of the author, I confess that I do not know if he is qualified to write such a report but his email address is there for you to question him directly.

If he is not qualfied then please by all means send us a rebuttal of his article with some evidence, if you can.

Peace - Enygma

I did look at it. I infered that your goal was to prove the US was actually behind it. Afterall, that is the thread title. What's the real goal in looking at why the towers fell? Aircraft flew into them. Why would there be any further need to change the affects that would bring?

The link I posted specifically addressed the physics of the collapse.

The guy who wrote the article you linked to doesn't know how much fuel the jets were carrying. He doesn't understand the physics of a burning building. Flashpoints and chimney effects are all a mystery to him. He erronously believes that a combustable will always burn at the same temperature. He can't comprehend the enormity of scale that took place. He makes a few guesses and puts up pictures that all lead to no point whatsoever.

Some of the hijackers used stolen passports. This doesn't really change who the key players were. 9-11 has become the new conspiracy theory playground for all those who are bored with the Kennedy assassinations.

Some of the hijackers used stolen passports. This doesn't really change who the key players were. 9-11 has become the new conspiracy theory playground for all those who are bored with the Kennedy assassinations.

It's all quite paradoxical! We must look at both arguments at hand...i don't think there should be a concrete direction where our conclusion must head, but we need to stay flexible and open-minded for different kinds of intimations.

Why can't some ppl just accept the fact that the Muslim world IS at danger and being a victim of abuse!? Why can't other ppl accept that a "muslim" involvement in 9/11 is not far from possible!!?? :ermm

It is up to others to judge it. The questions is whether a (US) moderator should call it ####...

PEace.

Munir, I respect you a lot, but I don't think it's really much of a question. Calling this stuff #### is like calling water wet.

Thanks but I have no clue whether it is worth it read. But a moderator should not say that it should be thrown away cause it is up to others. That is the difference between a moderator and others. I have seen a documentary about 911 with strange conclusions and there are some things I do not understand but that doesn't mean that the US did it or the data is not worthy to read. Jut see as the movie "Conspiracy Theory" where Mel Gibson is throwing crap but some parts may be the truth... There is same attitude in this site... And on the other side if you look at the many strange historical unexplained happenings (Kennedy, Cuba, Vietnam, Manhattan project...) then the US is not open and clear... I let others decide whether they find it ####.

"Why has no one questioned the statement that a novice pilot hit the pentagon? A casual view from the Navy Annex, overlooking the Pentagon on the Arlington side, shows clearly that expert skills are required to first fly into a small valley, then level out approximately 30-50 feet above ground level. Few "expert" pilots could do this."

Horsehockey! My very first time in the pilots seat I was making coodinated turns, pylon turns, "threading the needle" over uneven valleys (maintaining 500 AGL), navigating by dead reconing, shadowing ground traffic (surveilance of highway traffic), and doing a near-perfect approach and an assisted landing. Granted, this was in a small aircraft, but I had ZERO training ahead of time. Yes, multi-engine is vastly more complex, but my point is that with very little training there are SOME things that aren't as hard to do as they sound.

"The WTC was designed, using 6 primary support columns. Also, the impact on the particular tower, (2nd hit) was significantly less in impact force. However, it fell first. We also saw how the top part had fallen directly downward, as if all support had been simultaneously taken away. However, the media and government still strongly claim that the WTC was brought down by only an aircraft. I am not far away from a Physics degree and I still cannot figure it out. If there is an Engineer or a Physicist among you that could explain this, it would be appreciated. "

The WTC towers primary structural support was its steel exoskeleton. I don't know what 6 primary support columns the writer is talking about. Impact force wasn't the issue. When the towers were designed the steel was supposed to have been protected from thermal degradation by asbestos. midway through the construction, however, fears about the health effect of exposure to asbestos caused its use to be halted. The first tower to fall had the asbestos discontinued somewhere around the 50th floor, I believe. The second tower to fall (first hit) had asbestos past the 80th floor (if memory serves). Steel will lose most of its strength and become quite elastic well below its melting point (I'm not going to bother looking the numbers up just for this thread). If the exoskeleton became soft enough to bend, then it would have bent outward, the many tons of material above the weakend area would have borne directly down on the levels below, initiating a "banana-peel" effect (exactly what we saw on the slow-motion video)which stressed the as-yet unaffected steel below the burning area in an outward direction, A direction in which it was not designed to be stressed. Another writer stated that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireball. This contradicts my personal experience with flammable liquids, as well as the direct visual evidence on video tape. The towers were designed in the years before "failure Analysis" was used. People who design things don't usually look at how to wreck them, so the designer saying it was designed to withstand something doesn't mean a lot.

"Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses..."

I don't know who ruled them out, nor do I care. Respectfully,the expert that concluded this is probably wrong. They may be right under a theory that a chain of structural failures overstressed one component at time, until a critical point was reached. I still think the videos speak for themselves.

I could go on with scientific refutations, but I believe I've made my point. These questions, in order to sound more sinister, rely on certain incorrect assumptions being taken as fact. Correct the assumptions and the questions sound rather silly.

Scientific evidence aside, the logic of this entire series of questions is highly suspect for one powerful reason. It's not what you think.

Some of you, if you've read this far, are saying: Another American kutta (whatever the H#ll that is) who can't believe his government could do such a thing"

WRONG.

Let's say my government could, and did, do exactly that, did conceive and carry out the "hit" on the towers.

If they did, why go to the extra trouble, and risk, to "make sure" the towers collapsed?

Bear with me a minute.

Many of the questions about the mechanics of the attack and its aftermath center on what brought the towers down. It doesn't matter. The attacks themselves were more than sufficient to rally the public to any action the president wished to take. Any covert operations planner who admits what he does will tell you that the first rule is: KEEP IT SIMPLE (right, Sniper?) complicating the plan by planting explosives (Hard to hide & controlled implosions require weeks of preparation) would have been a useless and needless risk, increasing exponentially the odds of exposure.

A gauranteed collapse was not needed.

One other note, if an attack on Saddam was planned all the time, wouldn't it have been smarter to plant better evidence implicating Iraq directly? Amazing how such vast conspiracies can be carried off by people who can't even think logically.

Haven't you even bothered to contemplate WHY the United States was attacked on 9/11?

Think, it wasn't the UK, Germany, Italy or any other nation attacked with such determination and ferocity, but the US.

Not entirely true. There had been plans to hit Paris with an airliner, they just failed to pull it off.

The US is a prime target because it was the biggest member of the threat that radicals see in "Westernization." A large powerful and succesful secular state would always be unacceptable to AL Qaedia. Pretend all you want that there were some righteous issues behind the attack. There were not. Al Qaeida never gave any care whatsoever about the Palestinians before it decided it need an easily manipulated base of support. Al Qaeida wasn't striking back because the US supported dictators in South America. Oh, they will smash Israel given the chance. But harnessing the religious power that Saudi Arabi represents has priority. Al Qaeida's goal is control.